So first Steroids, now SpyGate. I'm so glad Congress has nothing fucking else to do these days. How comforting.
And now we're reading that Brian McNamee has "evidence" saved up from 7, 8 years ago in the guise of bloody gauze, syringes etc etc that will prove Clemens used. When rightfully asked why he would hold on to such things, McNamee's lawyer said that McNamee had a "gut feeling" that one day Clemens would try to screw him over, so he held on to the "evidence." Cause yeah, when the biggest client you could ever dream of plucks you out of complete obscurity and showers you with money and opportunity, it's normal to start thinking you know what, seems like this guy is out to fuck me over.
There's some false logic in the lawyer's statement that has my Xmas senses tingling like crazy. I tried to work it all out in my head, but my head exploded. But it's shit like this that pushes me even closer into Clemen's camp. And you know what, at the end of the day I'll take a super-competitive athlete illegally trying to enhance his performance in the arena over some manipulative, conniving sleazebag who collects blood (what's next, used toilet paper?) for almost a decade. What the fuck; at some point enough's enough, at some point behavior has to be deemed outside the realm of acceptance in a courtroom. In other words shouldn't this kinda make you think "aaaahh...this guy might be crazy"? How come I can get out of a murder charge if I'm crazy, but it doesn't seem to matter if a witness is sane?
I've said it before, and my mind is even more set now. Maybe Roger used, maybe he didn't, who knows. But this guy's credibility was suspect to begin with, and now in my eyes it has vanished completely. Enough with this joke of a show, time to move on.
2 comments:
You sound like a starstruck superfan here, Xmastime. Since when is asking someone to participate in an illegal activity "plucking them out of complete obscurity and showering you with money and opportunity"? When it's your word versus a popular professional player, who do you think most people are going to side with (didn't you learn anything from OJ?)? To me, it makes perfect sense that he would keep the evidence.
Oh, I see...."famous" = "guilty." Got it!
My point is I am not ready to destroy a man's life and reputation (yes BayonneMike, I know he's rich and famous enough already, I know he's not gonna be missing any meals, doesn't need your sympathy etc etc) simply because of the first person that waves a red flag. What if I ran through your office next week screaming "BM is a thief!"? It's okay for the rest of your office to think well, some dude just said Mike steals, so it must be true, let's find a way to fire him? No. And just because you're not a millionaire or famous doesn't give you any more rights than someone who is. Tough shit, how it is. They're called "human rights", not "non-rich/famous person rights."
Clemens gets proven guilty, that's fine. I don't care. But I do care about the (somehow) dismissive witchhunt. Did we fucking learn NOTHING from the Duke Rape Case?
I got a feeling that FOR ONCE Marley is gonna agree with me here!!!! I cant wait!!!!
Post a Comment